Discussion Title: Is Organic Farming Better Than Conventional Farming?

1. Organic farming is better than conventional farming
1.1. Con: Organic farming is more complicated to grow
1.1.1. Pro: Organic farming lacks the convenience of using mechanized or chemical techniques to fix every problem that is encountered.
1.1.2. Pro: Organic products are more expensive since they cost more to grow.
1.1.2.1. Pro: Low income families often cannot afford the extra cost of organic produce.
1.1.2.1.1. Pro: [Twelve million US households](https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128621057) eat unhealthy foods because they cannot afford better quality.
1.1.2.2. Con: One can grow organically in their own backyard for less than it would cost to buy organic or conventional at the store.
1.1.3. Con: Methods of sustainable agriculture \(notably biointensive market gardening and pastured poultry\) can rely less on huge surfaces, expensive machines and continual inputs than industrial agriculture, making it cheaper and easier to get into.
1.1.4. Pro: Organic farming is more time consuming than regular farming.
1.1.4.1. Con: If organic farming requires more labor/time, it generates more jobs than conventional agriculture, making this a pro and not a con.
1.1.4.2. Con: The fact that it requires more time also means that there will be enough care, attention, etc. put in to where the quality of the final products will be higher.
1.1.4.3. Pro: Because organic growers do not use the same amounts of chemicals to maintain their crops, they often have to rely on [manual methods](https://www.thebalance.com/reasons-organic-food-costs-more-2538165) of controlling pests and disease. This is more time-consuming than using chemical methods.
1.1.4.4. Con: It doesn't matter if it is more time-consuming. The farmers still do it and produce the food on time. They are not working over-time to do it.
1.1.4.4.1. Con: On the contrary, it does matter. Organic farmers would not be able to produce food in the timescale required if it was used in place of conventional farming. They are currently able to work to their own timescale because organic produce is more of a luxury than a necessity.
1.1.4.4.1.1. Pro: Truffle farmers, for example, are not likely working overtime due to the luxury nature of truffles.
1.2. Pro: Organic farming is economically more sound.
1.2.1. Pro: Organic agriculture can decentralize the power of agrarian monopolies \(seed emitters\).
1.2.2. Con: Some organically grown produce is a [waste](https://www.cheatsheet.com/health-fitness/organic-foods-total-waste-money.html/) of money.
1.2.3. Con: Industrial-scale farming makes it easier to increase [agricultural income](https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/economy/budget/shift-focus-from-subsistence-farming-to-commercial-farming-economic-survey/article30701668.ece) \(especially for the impoverished and developing countries that depend on it\).
1.2.4. Pro: Organic farming is cheaper because it does not require expensive fungicides, pesticides, and insecticides.
1.2.4.1. Con: Organic farms produce far less per crop.
1.2.4.1.1. Pro: Overall, the [USDA surveys](https://www.acsh.org/news/2016/08/25/organic-farms-yield-20-fewer-crops-than-conventional-farms) showed organic farms yield 20% less crops than conventional farms. This number jumps to 60% lower for potatoes.
1.2.4.1.2. Con: About [1.3 billion tons](http://www.fao.org/save-food/resources/keyfindings/en/) of food are wasted and thrown out every year. Yielding less crops is thus more efficient.
1.2.4.1.2.1. Con: Wastage in the food supply chain and the yield of primary production are completely separate issues. The efficiency of production doesn't change with the efficiency of downstream distribution.
1.2.4.1.3. Pro: Organic farming may be cheaper but it also produces a lower yield meaning that the cost of the produce becomes inflated due to scarcity. The cost if organic farming is passed onto the consumer.
1.2.4.2. Con: Commercial farming is far cheaper than organic farming.
1.2.4.2.1. Pro: Processing, handling and distribution of organic produce tend to be [higher](http://www.fao.org/organicag/oa-faq/oa-faq5/en/) due to limited quantities, greater labour inputs, and inefficient marking.
1.2.4.3. Pro: Organic produce have lower levels of added inorganic chemical content.
1.2.4.3.1. Pro: Organic food is higher in antioxidants and lower in toxic metals and pesticides.[ncl.ac.uk](http://www.ncl.ac.uk/press/articles/archive/2015/10/organicvsnon-organicfood/)
1.2.4.3.1.1. Con: This article states Lower levels of certain chemicals in organic foods, but it does not state whether  or not the levels in conventional crops were harmful \(above recommended levels\) For example, a 50% reduction of 0.001 ppm is negligible. What is required is a statement of relative risk reduction to human health.
1.2.4.3.2. Con: Some organic content is bad for your health and some inorganic content is good for your health. There is no reason to believe added inorganic content is necessarily a bad thing.
1.2.4.4. Pro: Organic farming is cheaper \(as a whole\), as it leads to less health problems and thus lower healthcare costs in the long term.
1.2.4.5. Con: Organic farming does use pesticides. And they are not necessarily cheaper. On a large scale, conventional farming is cheaper.
1.3. Pro: The welfare for organic livestock is [higher](https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/organic/consumer-trust/animal-welfare_da) than for conventional livestock.
1.3.1. Con: Livestock that are raised according to USDA organic standards are denied some forms of veterinary care, such as being provided [antibiotics](https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Organic%20Livestock%20Requirements.pdf) when they are sick, whereas conventional livestock are allowed [full care](https://grist.org/food/what-you-need-to-know-about-antibiotics-in-livestock/).
1.3.1.1. Con: The risks of using antibiotics in conventional livestock farming practices outweigh the benefits when increases the development of bacteria strains that are resistant to antibiotic treatment is taken into consideration.
1.3.1.1.1. Pro: Organically raised animals [are not given](https://www.helpguide.org/articles/healthy-eating/organic-foods.htm/) antibiotics, growth hormones, or fed animal byproducts that can contaminate the soil and water via their excrement.
1.3.1.1.1.1. Con: Due to profit incentives, farmers [may not treat sick animals](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4494360/), which leads to animal suffering. So there's a cost to preserving the environment: it's at the expense of livestock.
1.3.1.1.1.2. Pro: Organic farming naturally [conserves the soil](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/agriculture/8000399/Organic-farms-soil.html) in the long-term by cushioning against soil degradation, through support of [microbial](http://www.ibiblio.org/london/SoilWiki/message-archives/composttea+soilfoodweb+soilquality/4/msg00085.html) activities that release nutrients and transform soil.
1.3.1.1.2. Pro: Organic practices take precautions on spreading disease, due to letting livestock have more space and be outdoors, which limit their ability to mutate to spread to other animals [at the cost of wildlife](https://www.bendbulletin.com/localstate/feral-swine-disease-could-threaten-livestock-wildlife/article_1e8ff396-c2d7-11ea-a026-2381934b4f6d.html) and even human life.
1.3.1.1.2.1. Pro: If humans get infected, they may also use antibiotics, which only furthers resource consumption, antibiotic resistance, and cost of life. These are avoidable with organic measures.
1.3.1.1.3. Pro: Antibiotics requires consumes resources which negatively impacts the environment and is avoidable.
1.3.2. Pro: The [living conditions for organic livestock are more healthy for the animals](http://www.organicitsworthit.org/learn/organic-standards-support-and-promote-animal-health) than that of conventional livestock.
1.4. Pro: Organic farming is healthier for the environment.
1.4.1. Pro: Conventional farming is less profitable because of: the amount of inputs required, sequential exhaustion of the land and pollution of the environment, and simultaneous exacerbation of climate change.
1.4.1.1. Pro: In New Zealand, intensive dairy farmers are struggling and rivers are poisoned, yet organic milk commands a premium even when there is a down turn and doesn't rely on petrochemical fertilisers or dumping nitrates into our aquifers. 
 Industrialised farming is a con, benefiting only pesticide and fertiliser companies.
1.4.2. Pro: In the long term, organic farming reaches to be [sustainable](https://you.stonybrook.edu/environment/sustainable-vs-conventional-agriculture/). Conventional agriculture just aims short-term goals, being profit-, instead of eco-driven.
1.4.2.1. Pro: Long term, [organic farming](https://www.permaculture.co.uk/news/1006156357/30-year-old-trial-finds-organic-farming-outperforms-conventional-agriculture) is more efficient, uses less energy, out perform conventional farming, produces less greenhouse gases and shows to be sustainable.
1.4.3. Pro: Organic farming preserves the heirloom varieties that some GMOs [try to replace](https://www.planetnatural.com/hazardous-harvest-gmo/) \(because [organic means non-GMO](https://www.starkbros.com/growing-guide/article/organic-vs-non-gmo-vs-hybrid-whats-the-difference)\), like [seedless produce](https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/seedless-fruit-is-not-something-new).
1.4.3.1. Con: Heirloom vegetables are [not necessarily healthier](http://fabulousfoods.com/articles/956351/are-heirloom-vegetables-better-for-the-environment) for the environment.
1.4.4. Pro: Organic farming supports the survival of pollinators, like bees.
1.4.4.1. Pro: Organic farming [reduces](https://www.foodmanufacturing.com/news/2015/06/organic-farming-practices-are-bee-friendly-shows-new-report) the quantity of toxic chemicals bees are naturally exposed to in the pollination process.
1.4.4.1.1. Pro: [Neonicotinoids](https://www.organic-center.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/The-Role-of-Organic-in-Supporting-Pollinator-Health.pdf), a neurotoxicant used to treat agricultural pests, are exceptionally deadly to bees. This is eliminated in organic farming. \(pg 7\)
1.4.5. Pro: -> See 1.3.1.1.
1.4.6. Pro: Organic farming is a great way to [rejuvenate land](http://www.fao.org/3/ca4046en/ca4046en.pdf) degraded due to excessive cultivation.
1.4.7. Con: Organic farming still uses organic chemicals and pesticides that affect us and the environment in the [same or worse](https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/science/environment/organic-farming-not-always-so-environmentally-friendly/) way than the synthetic equivalents do.
1.4.8. Con: If based on persons fed per acre, organic farming is detrimental, due to significant inefficiency
1.4.8.1. Pro: -> See 1.2.4.1.1.
1.4.8.2. Con: If examined as a whole in regards to the global ecosystem, lack of sustainability of conventional farming over time would decrease the persons fed per acre efficiency rating. Eventually, organic farming would overtake conventional farming as the more efficient option. Organic being worse is just seen in the short-term.
1.4.9. Pro: Organically grown plants are more durable, and have higher resistance to pest and diseases.
1.4.9.1. Pro: Being resistant to pests allows 'pests' to survive, which increases biodiversity within the ecosystem.
1.4.9.2. Con: Genetically modified foods are actually more durable.[geneticallymodifiedfoods.co.uk](http://www.geneticallymodifiedfoods.co.uk/making-crops-more-resilient.html)
1.4.9.3. Pro: Not having diseases means that diseases are less likely to spread to other plants, which is especially pertinent in today's globalized market.
1.4.9.3.1. Pro: Crop resistance to disease, allows for greater crop yields, which wastes less resources \(like growing a plant that cannot produce fruit, so nothing is sold because the efforts went to waste\), making organic food better for the environment.
1.4.9.3.2. Pro: Diseases are less likely to spread into wildlife, which can destroy fauna and flora if transferred there.
1.4.10. Pro: Those who veer towards organic may end up veering towards other practices that are good for the environment, like [veganism](http://tier-im-fokus.ch/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/baroni07.pdf), cleanup volunteering, etc. So it's a multi-fold benefit when organic farming inspires even more change beyond just the benefits switching to it provides.
1.4.11. Con: Organic farming [uses more land](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652617309666) to grow the same amount of food. More natural ecosystems convert into farmland this way, which hurts the environment.
1.4.11.1. Con: Though organic farming may use more land, the land used has lower impact and integrates more with the natural environment.
1.4.11.2. Con: Depleted, compacted and drained soils will be unusable for farming, equally requiring more land in the long run.
1.4.11.3. Pro: Considering the impending [shortage](https://www.rug.nl/news/2015/04/wereldwijd-tekort-aan-landbouwgrond-in-2050?lang=en) of land available for agriculture is being matched with a growing population, it's crucial to limit organic farming to continue to preserve the environment's existence into the future.
1.4.12. Pro: Organic farming uses less water to grow \([1](https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/reports-show-less-water-used-organic-farming#close), [2](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/organic-farming-yields-and-feeding-the-world-under-climate-change/)\) the same amount of food as traditional methods do. This helps farmers save on water usage.
1.4.12.1. Con: There are [genetically modified crops](https://www.forbes.com/sites/gmoanswers/2016/08/30/gmos-water-balance/#321b925d6975) that specifically address preservation of water. Unfortunately, organic standards prohibit genetically modified crops.
1.4.12.2. Pro: Organic farming [helps survive droughts](https://www.cnbc.com/2014/12/09/rought-resistant-report.html), as it [adapts](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jsfa.6369) to the water availability of local ecosystems.
1.5. Pro: Organically-grown produce tastes better than conventionally-grown.
1.5.1. Pro: Organic produce is given more time to naturally ripen, producing a better taste.
1.5.1.1. Con: Produce farmed using non-organic methods cannot be left to 'naturally' ripen.
1.5.1.2. Con: No its not. Everything is allowed to ripen as much as it can before going to market to be sold before it goes bad. If something is too ripe when harvested its more likely to be bruised and damaged in transit.
1.5.1.2.1. Pro: Local food production and direct farm-to-customer selling would allow to let produce ripen more. This is not linked to organic farming.
1.5.2. Con: Taste is entirely subjective and varies per person. Penn and Teller proved this point exactly in one of their shows: [Penn and Teller: Organic Food Test](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_IoNQHMFLk)
1.6. Pro: Organic farming [protects](https://www.organic-center.org/farmworkers-risk-chemicals-organic-can-help-shows-new-report) the workers and everyone living close to the fields from coming in contact with dangerous chemicals.
1.6.1. Pro: Organic farming utilizes [cultural practices](https://www.organic-center.org/farmworkers-risk-chemicals-organic-can-help-shows-new-report)(Some of the most common cultural practices utilized by organic farmers to manage pests include crop rotations, intercropping, the use of buffers and hedgerows, and the promotion of soil health to balance the farm ecosystem.) that work with the ecosystem in order to control pests. These practices minimize the amount of harmful substances the environment and workers come in contact with.
1.7. Pro: People [want it more](https://livingmaxwell.com/58-prefer-organic-food).
1.7.1. Pro: This is especially true, as the world is trending towards better ethics: [health](https://foodindustryexecutive.com/2019/03/consumers-say-they-want-to-eat-healthy/), environment, humane rights, etc. Organic farming goes along with it.
1.7.2. Pro: Improving [agricultural productivity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_productivity#:~:text=Importance%20of%20agricultural%20productivity,-The%20productivity%20of&text=Aside%20from%20providing%20more%20food,and%20savings%2C%20and%20labour%20migration.) is important for developing countries because it provides for greater food security and increases the country's prospects for growth on the global agricultural market.
1.8. Con: Organic farming [cannot support the current population.](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/19/science/19conv.html?ref=science)
1.8.1. Con: A [UN report](https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/aug/14/organic-farming-agriculture-world-hunger) states that small scale organic farming is in fact the best solution to world hunger, as conventional farming ruins the land to the point of starvation.
1.8.2. Pro: Organic farming's stance against GMOs prevents removal of the inedible parts of foods. [1/2 billion](https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/httpblogsscientificamericancomscience-sushi20110718mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/) may starve worldwide with more food waste generation, and [20-50%](https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/httpblogsscientificamericancomscience-sushi20110718mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/) lower yields when switching all food to organic growing.
1.8.3. Pro: Significant population growth in the near future will only make this problem worse, especially in developing countries that cannot afford the expense of organic crops.
1.8.3.1. Con: The opposite is true. Most crops in developing countries are organically produced. It is the flood of cheap, industrial imports that pushes local, organic farmers off the market \([1](https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/oct/11/eu-agriculture-hurts-developing-countries); [2](http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/i1952e/i1952e08.pdf)\) when the population \(and its demand\) grows.
1.8.3.2. Con: If a strategy was implemented to teach people in developing countries basic organic farming techniques then it could help develop many local job markets and economic trade structures and would also provide potential export trade goods for those countries to sell.
1.8.3.3. Con: Organic crops can be grown without the use of the technologically advanced and expensive machinery that is needed for conventional farming, or the cost of chemical treatments used for pesticides, etc. When seen from this perspective, small scale farming is actually [less expensive](https://www.livescience.com/1712-study-organic-farming-efficient.html) and much more accessible to developing countries.
1.8.3.4. Con: -> See 1.2.4.
1.8.4. Pro: Organic farming can cause famine in the third world where mass crop failures arise from disease and drought.
1.8.4.1. Con: Seeds imported from big, international companies often are mainly focused on profit, being less resilient than the traditional varieties used by local farmers.
1.9. Con: Conventional farming allows for more variation in food and as result creation of newer/more various types of food than organic practices.
1.9.1. Pro: Genetic modifications are not allowed in organic farming.
1.9.1.1. Con: GMOs can spread in nature and harm other organisms.
1.9.1.1.1. Con: GMO crops are more effective in the face of climate change.
1.9.1.1.2. Con: This is already happening naturally, invasive species are quite common. GM could be used as a tool to actively prevent invasive species and the spread of GMOs themselves. This is actually already an implemented technology and, ironically, anti GMO proponents use as an argument against GMOs:[Genetic use restriction technology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_technology)
1.9.1.2. Pro: Genetically-modified crops [use significantly less pesticides](https://www.acsh.org/news/2014/11/06/meta-analysis-shows-gm-crops-reduce-pesticide-use-37-percent).
1.9.1.3. Con: It shouldn't be, as GMO farming is often only accessible to big farming companies who claim patents of the best GMO seeds and then use those to out.compete smaller farmers. Organic farming allows smaller farmers to stay competitive.
1.9.1.4. Con: There are [no problems](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/23/well/eat/are-gmo-foods-safe.html) with using GMOs; this is unnecessary, therefore.
1.9.1.5. Con: This is a positive, as there are negative health issues affiliated with eating genetically modified foods.
1.9.1.5.1. Con: Actually, GMOs has been found [not harmful](https://eu.usatoday.com/story/tech/2016/05/17/gmos-safe-academies-of-science-report-genetically-modified-food/84458872/) to human health.
1.9.1.5.2. Pro: [Animal studies](http://responsibletechnology.org/gmo-education/health-risks/) show serious health risks associated with eating genetically-modified foods, such as accelerated aging, immune problems, and infertility. Organic is better in this way.
1.9.1.5.2.1. Con: It's always problematic to compare studies performed on animals to humans as human anatomy differs, meaning that humans also react differently to certain substances than animals.
1.9.1.5.2.2. Con: The source completely misrepresents the conclusions of its sixth cited article, [“Pharmacogenomics of the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator \(CFTR\) and the cystic fibrosis drug CPX using genome microarray analysis.”](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2230479/?page=1) The article is about the use of gene therapy to treat cystic fibrosis in humans. The source of this claim uses this article as evidence for unpredictable changes resulting from the consumption of genetically engineered food.
1.9.1.5.2.3. Con: The source misrepresents its 12th citation, [“Public health implications of the microbial pesticide Bacillus thuringiensis: An epidemiological study, Oregon, 1985-86,”](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1404979/?page=1)which investigates the effects of clinical infection with Bacillus thuringiensis. Foods genetically engineered to contain the Bt toxin do not have the Bt bacterium whole.
1.9.1.5.2.4. Con: The source inaccurately reports the results of its 9th citation, ["Genetically modified and wild soybeans: an immunologic comparison."](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16119037)The study reports that "The skin test results of 49 patients showed 13 positive results to wild soybeans and 8 positive results to GMO soybeans." The article cherrypicks the example of one person that had a reaction to GMO soybeans but not to wild soybeans. In addition, the article states that the study was not enough to completely assess allergenicity of GMO food.
1.9.1.6. Pro: Farmers are [prohibited](https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2013/05/17/organic-101-can-gmos-be-used-organic-products) from planting GMO seeds or give organic livestock GMO feed.
1.9.1.7. Pro: Some genetically engineered foods are[compatible with the ideals of sustainable agriculture](https://www.ted.com/talks/pamela_ronald_the_case_for_engineering_our_food), which is the original goal of the organic movement.
1.10. Pro: Eating produce grown [organically](http://tier-im-fokus.ch/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/baroni07.pdf) is better for the human body.
1.10.1. Con: Organic farming tends to make people more sick, due to [higher levels of pathogens](https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/httpblogsscientificamericancomscience-sushi20110718mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/)
1.10.2. Pro: One [study](http://tier-im-fokus.ch/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/baroni07.pdf) revealed that the vegan diet has the lowest total environmental impact compared to Italian, omnivore, and vegetarian diets, especially when organically grown.
1.10.3. Pro: Lower risk of diseases, like [infertility](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/pesticides-produce-fertility-women/), cancer, and immunodeficiency, are reported in individuals that eat organically-grown food.
1.10.3.1. Con: The [American Cancer Society](https://www.cancer.org/healthy/eat-healthy-get-active/acs-guidelines-nutrition-physical-activity-cancer-prevention/food-additives.html) reports no difference in studies looking at cancer incidence in individuals eating organic versus non-organic produce.
1.10.4. Con: A [Stanford University study](http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/organic-food-not-healthier-stanford-researchers-nutrition-organic-meats-produce-dairy-no-better-article-1.1151470) found that eating organic foods were not better than eating conventionally farmed foods.
1.10.5. Pro: Organic food is the last healthy thing we have through all these cancerous industries of food. If we lose this, the human race is going to miss out and not be as healthy.
1.11. Con: The organic label is inconsistent and legally more complicated, as it is [slightly arbitrary](https://www.cornucopia.org/2015/04/groups-challenge-major-usda-change-to-organic-rule/) and [subject to changes](http://www.nbcnews.com/id/5067422/ns/us_news-environment/t/organic-farmers-rose-against-label-changes/#.WvMgJaSUvIU).
1.11.1. Con: Just because something can be changed does not mean it is arbitrary.
1.11.1.1. Pro: The Constitution of the United States can be changed. That does not make the constitution "arbitrary".
1.11.2. Pro: Some organic farming is [exempt from certification](https://www.ams.usda.gov/grades-standards/organic-labeling-standards), so they can post a USDA seal under certain circumstances without being certified.
1.11.3. Pro: Organic food uses [more pesticides](https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/httpblogsscientificamericancomscience-sushi20110718mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/) at times to grow \(due to their ineffectiveness\) than conventional ones without regulation and research. People can get ill at the higher toxicity levels with no one being able to say it is bad.
1.11.3.1. Pro: The ineffectiveness of the pesticides lead to more [environmental damage](https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/httpblogsscientificamericancomscience-sushi20110718mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/), due to more pesticide use and lack of fighting off the pests \(which cause more pesticide use on other farms, if the pests travel over\).
1.11.4. Pro: The methods used in organic farming are still closer to conventional farming than they are to other methods of regenerative and sustainable farming.
1.11.5. Pro: Legally, the difference between many organic and conventional companies is marginal. Loose policies enable terrible companies to label their foods as "organic" just because they can jump through some loose policy hoops.
1.11.6. Pro: Inconsistency could lead to negative consequences.
1.11.6.1. Pro: If changes occur, the idea of what the organic label is does not match reality, which could lead to people getting ill and not trusting labels/providers in the future \(which also could lead to health problems from eating foods from worse practices\) out of confusion.
1.11.6.2. Pro: If these changes are too great, the organic label regulations might allow organic farming to be worse than conventional methods.
1.11.6.2.1. Con: The entire idea of the "organic" label is that the food production methods are more holistic than conventional methods. It ridiculous to suggest that just because the definition of "organic" can hypothetically be changed \(and in the article this argument is based off of, those changes were swiftly rescinded\) that guidelines will be weakened to the point of being worse than conventional methods.
1.11.7. Con: Regardless of changes, organic methods limit pesticides \([1](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1241395/pdf/ehp0111-000377.pdf), [2](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1367841/)\) from going into the body.
1.12. Con: -> See 1.1.4.